Read the Classics?

[haha]

Oh, come on. There are plenty of 20th Century writers that are "Classics" -- James Michener, Mickey Spillane, Stephen King, Grace Metalious, Tony Morrison, Jacqueline Susann, etc... to name but a few.

I must say if Peyton Place was a classic, it sure was a horny classic for a parochial schoolboy in the 50s.

Ha

 

[HFWR]

Oh, come on. There are plenty of 20th Century writers that are "Classics" -- James Michener, Mickey Spillane, Stephen King, Grace Metalious, Tony Morrison, Jacqueline Susann, etc... to name but a few.

"The giants..."




Sent from my iCouch using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Maenad]

I LOVE reading, but I find that a lot of the classics have subtext that I don't pick up, and that subtext is what makes them amazing. If I can get the Cliff's Notes, or an annotated version, that helps. Then it opens up this whole world I wasn't even aware of!

Other than Steinbeck. His stories are just too depressing.

 

[Major Tom]

I had a girlfriend in college with whom I used to play a game. We'd compare each other to various inanimate objects in an attempt to convey an aspect of the other's personality. For example, "If you were a kitchen utensil, you'd be a potato peeler".

She said to me, "If you were a book, you'd be Catcher In The Rye." Several decades later, I still occasionally wonder about that. Sadly, she is no longer with us, so I cannot ask her what she meant by it...........

 

[LitGal]

Majored in humanities to better understand human nature. Figured that, with a lit. major, somebody would make me read lots of those "famous books." Then I'd learn what some of the greatest minds thought about the essence of humanity and life itself.

Well, despite 2 lit. degrees and 34 years teaching some of those books, I only scratched the surface of it all. Partly because, with teaching some courses for years at a time, I'd end up reading some texts 30-35 times each. (eg. Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Taming of the Shrew, various Steinbeck novels, Scarlet Letter, Huck Finn, Catcher in the Rye, Great Gatsby, plus contemporary classics by Maya Angelou and Zora Neale Hurston.)

Never got bored with any of them. As with any work of art (a musical piece, a ballet, painting, or sculpture) each viewing presents new detail, which not only enriches interpretation but also awes the viewer with newly discovered complexities in the artist's genius.

Sadly, the "classics" are often presented as dry, boring, and dead. But a close, engaged reading with teenagers and young adults can kill off that notion in about 5 minutes. Why would somebody say, "All right then, I'll go to hell"? (Huck Finn) Why might each of us want to become a catcher in the rye? What happens if you forcibly tangle the threads of another's soul, just to eke out some sweet revenge? How can someone with a ruined life and reputation inspire a community of former enemies? (These last 2 are woven through The Scarlet Letter.) I've seen hundreds of young people grab these topics, wrestle with them in the "tough texts," then express keen, mature insights about daily life and the people around them.

Writers of old described the universal, timeless foibles of this world.
For example, so much in Oscar Wilde rings true today. In a favorite scene in The Importance of Being Earnest, Lady Bracknell comes home from the weekly meeting of her club, "The Society for the Prevention of Discontent Among the Upper Orders."

How many of us have had to sit through meetings that could have used that moniker?

 

[LitGal]

Just saw the time of that last post.

Happy New Year, everyone! Responding to this topic was more fun than watching the fireworks outside the window!

And the party ended early enough so I could enjoy this thread.

Thanks, OP!

 

[martyp]

And I can't read or watch anything of Shakespeare, I simply can't follow the language and therefore the story. I've tried, and quickly gotten lost every time.

I've read or seen most of Shakespeare and am not a big fan for the reason you mention. However, I would recommend the Kenneth Branagh movie version of Henry V (1989). It's terrific and makes me wonder why so many performances of Shakespeare are stilted.

 

[martyp]

I continue to read the classics and modern as well. Most I like. Some I don't.

A few people here have mentioned that they didn't like War and Peace. I read it as an adult for a book club. Long. Took me a while to get into it but in the end I loved it and am glad I made the effort.

As for whether the OP's children read the classics or not . . . I think it is more important that they read some fiction for enjoyment. They should also learn that some writing is more difficult but can be worth the effort. It shows a certain amount of perseverance which is a good quality in many aspects of life. A certain amount of hard work and delayed gratification is useful in reading and other things.

I don't have kids so I don't know what gets assigned in school or how it is presented. Maybe some others, teachers or parents, can help us out here.

 

[Ally]

I've read or seen most of Shakespeare and am not a big fan for the reason you mention. However, I would recommend the Kenneth Branagh movie version of Henry V (1989). It's terrific and makes me wonder why so many performances of Shakespeare are stilted.

Agreed. This version is very entertaining.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[clifp]

There is a reason that they keep making movies and miniseries of Jane Austen's novels. They are quite witty and the characters are well developed. They have stood the test of time despite changing social customs.

My ex-girlfriend turned me on Jane Austen, and I agree interesting witty characters even the the action can be a be slow.

There is a lot of classics I like Twain, Jack London, Shakespeare, Hemingway, most Dickens, and some like Gibbons that I've tried many times to read and failed.

 

[imoldernu]

I had a girlfriend in college with whom I used to play a game. We'd compare each other to various inanimate objects in an attempt to convey an aspect of the other's personality. For example, "If you were a kitchen utensil, you'd be a potato peeler".

She said to me, "If you were a book, you'd be Catcher In The Rye." Several decades later, I still occasionally wonder about that. Sadly, she is no longer with us, so I cannot ask her what she meant by it...........

OMG... It was "banned" or at least talked about in back rooms when I was in H.S. Probably the first book I read in College, in 1954. The transition between the Victorian morality that my extended family lived in, and the new age rebellion. The family saw young boys as Tom Sawyer, or Penrod. After "Catcher", we saw ourselves as freed libertines.

You might have missed out on something exciting with your liberated friend.

 

[2017ish]

My ex-girlfriend turned me on Jane Austen, and I agree interesting witty characters even the the action can be a be slow.

There is a lot of classics I like Twain, Jack London, Shakespeare, Hemingway, most Dickens, and some like Gibbons that I've tried many times to read and failed.

+1 on the Decline and Fall. Decided to give it another try after quite a while, and scored a free download for my Kindle (as always, "Yay, Gutenberg!"). Made it 9% of the way through, then "Remove from Device."

 

[haha]

I've read or seen most of Shakespeare and am not a big fan for the reason you mention. However, I would recommend the Kenneth Branagh movie version of Henry V (1989). It's terrific and makes me wonder why so many performances of Shakespeare are stilted.

I agree, this is excellent. Also Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Keanu Reeves and Kate Beckinsale
star in an excellent version of As You Like It. I think Shakespeare's plays are better seen than read, for most of us anyway. As to War and Peace, I foundered once, then read Anna Karenina and then I was ready for another go at War and Peace. I loved it this second time. I also think that Anna Karenina is one of the all time great books.

Ha

 

[braumeister]

I think many works that were considered "classics" a hundred years ago are largely forgotten today. Tastes change, and styles change just as quickly.

I was just thinking recently that while it takes a bit of effort to appreciate Shakespeare, it takes a lot more effort to appreciate Chaucer. And it's impossible, without copious footnotes, to appreciate Beowulf. Yet they are all written in English. Sure, Beowulf is Old English and Chaucer is Middle English, but they are still versions of the same language.

So now that we have a lot more standardization of the language and widespread availability of nearly everything, is it likely that what we consider classics today will endure?

Ha! Fat chance.

Runners have a little trick for when we really don't want to go out but feel we should. We go for a one mile jog, then make the decision whether to continue or not. I use the same technique when I encounter a so-called classic. I'll try it out for 20-30 pages, then decide whether I want to keep going or not. Works for me.

 

[RonBoyd]

Very interesting interview:

Author Says a Whole Culture—Not a Single 'Homer'—Wrote 'Iliad,' 'Odyssey'

The Iliad and The Odyssey are two of the key works of Western civilization. But almost nothing is known about their author and the date and manner of their creation. In Why Homer Matters, historian and award-winning author Adam Nicolson suggests that Homer be thought of not as a person but as a tradition and that the works attributed to him go back a thousand years earlier than generally believed.

(As an aside: My recalling this quote -- "No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions- expressed by somebody else." --Sydney Tremayne -- makes me particularly fond of this passage)

We have a modern assumption that something only has meaning if it's written down. But the literate world is minimal compared to the depths of human history. We're essentially oral. And in a funny way the modern, electronic communicative world is making orality take on a new significance.

In traditional societies, the person who can learn and perform the stories has been treasured. That's true not only in the European world but across Africa and the Americas too. We've only got a few fragments of that left. And one of those fragmentary remains is in Gaelic Scotland, where certain families still preserve storytelling traditions that draw on ancient roots. Some of these bards have dazzling capacities of memory. They can remember stories that last hours and hours, nearly word-perfect. Some of them have been recorded over a period of 20 years, and they've told the same story in almost the same words.

Most of us can't remember a single phone number nowadays, because they're all in the phone memory. Yet buried deep in us is this ability to remember important things. And one of the things about poetry and the rhythmic, heightened language of poetry is that it makes it easy to remember. You can sing a story more easily than you can tell it.